Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 17:45:38 PM EDT

I'm sure the latest reports coming from FOX News are only the tip of the iceberg regarding what really happened at the US embassy in Benghazi when it was attacked by Islamofascists. But ALL Americans should be outraged over this latest item:

Former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods was part of a small team who was at the CIA annex about a mile from the U.S. consulate where Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team came under attack. When he and others heard the shots fired, they informed their higher-ups at the annex to tell them what they were hearing and requested permission to go to the consulate and help out. They were told to "stand down," according to sources familiar with the exchange. Soon after, they were again told to "stand down."

Woods and at least two others ignored those orders and made their way to the consulate which at that point was on fire. Shots were exchanged. The rescue team from the CIA annex evacuated those who remained at the consulate and Sean Smith, who had been killed in the initial attack. They could not find the ambassador and returned to the CIA annex at about midnight.

Obviously the bureaucrat who gave the order to stand down was observing the protocols of the Obama Administration to "lead from behind" even if the act of doing so would result in the deaths of Americans serving their country.

Tyrone Woods was later joined at the scene by fellow former Navy SEAL Glen Doherty, who was sent in from Tripoli as part of a Global Response Staff or GRS that provides security to CIA case officers and provides countersurveillance and surveillance protection. They were killed by a mortar shell at 4 a.m. Libyan time, nearly seven hours after the attack on the consulate began -- a window that represented more than enough time for the U.S. military to send back-up from nearby bases in Europe, according to sources familiar with Special Operations. Four mortars were fired at the annex. The first one struck outside the annex. Three more hit the annex.

It's one thing to be incompetent; it's another thing to coverup both the incompetence and the fatal consequences of said incompetence. Does this episode constitute high crimes, misdemeanors, or both? President Barack Obama won't resign over this debacle so we can only hope he loses in November & thus spare our country the spectacle of his impeachment.

But given how bitterly divided this country is on certain foundational principles of our republic, there may be enough unthinking voters enthralled with the messianic pretensions of The One to embrace his version of Bonapartism.

First, as I have pointed out to you before, if the right-wing had been equally obsessed with learning what obvious clues George Bush and he's team were given before 9-11. Talk about grounds for impeachment.

Let's assume there was tragic FUBAR that night. Your showing how desperate things are, trying to transform the fog of war into a impeachable offense. Desperate.

The "tragic FUBAR" was made by voters who bought an empty slogan rather than electing a leader in 2008. This Administration is far more than incompetent...it is treasonous. You don't know squat about what Bush knew prior to 9/11/01, but the world now knows that Obama and his crew of panderers have American blood on their hands. This has nothing to do with "right" or "left" and everything to do with dereliction of duty, criminal negligence, blatant and consistent lying, aiding and abetting Al Qaeda/Muslim Brotherhood and sacrificing our embassy personnel to advance a political agenda.

First, there is now plenty of documentation of the numerous warnings and pleas within the Bush administration in the months following up to 9/11 to put the pieces together. If someone in the Bush Administration cared about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda, they would have found plenty of clues to act.

Secondly, the "leader" you wanted to elect in 2008, opposed going into Pakistan to hunt down and kill Bin Laden, if that meant sending just US forces and not in "coordination" with the Pakistan government. It is clear that if McCain were elected President, he either would have changed his mind, grown some balls and ordered the same attack Obama did, or Bin Laden would still be walking the earth.

Given that you won't accept these truths, your attitude is indeed about "right and left". You are more eager to undermine anything Obama does and have a myopic focus on attacking the President of the United States and the Commander in Chief of our country.

By far the worst progressive reactions to any argument are:
1) You (your guy, your side, etc.) did it first/worse/more, etc.
2) Having it both ways whenever the circumstance suits.

The reason why classical liberals have such problems with modern progressives is their lack of commitment to principle and their 'win at all costs' actions. The reason why so many fewer people when polled claim to be liberal is not because they have shifted. They are embarrassed to be associated with the left right now. The same mouths that spit and sputtered endlessly about Bush's aggression (and Cheney even worse) are now so hypocritically proud of the killing of bin Laden and quietly ignoring the death of innocents (and bad guys) through the increasing use of drones.

I think SimpleJ makes a good point. The left can with good reason ask, "Where were you guys who are knocking Obama over X, Y, and Z when Bush was doing X, Y, and Z?" Likewise, the right can ask, "Where were you guys who knocked Bush over X, Y, and Z, now that Obama is doing X, Y, and Z?"

There aren't many people I can think of on the right or the left who have been consistent critics of both administrations. On the right you have a few conservatives that write for the The American Conservative magazine. On the left you have Glenn Greenwald (and I'm sure a few others who I don't know).

---
"He is a very shallow critic who cannot see an eternal rebel in the heart of a conservative." - G.K. Chesterton
http://red.ma.altercate.net

If CIA Director David Petraeus was part of the chain of command that allowed Americans to die in Benghazi, then yes, he & the others complicit in this debacle should resign. As Larry Bellinquired:

Just one hour after the seven-hour-long terrorist attacks upon the U.S. consulate in Benghazi began, our commander-in-chief, vice president, secretary of defense and their national security team gathered together in the Oval Office listening to phone calls from American defenders desperately under siege and watching real-time video of developments from a drone circling over the site. Yet they sent no military aid that might have intervened in time to save lives.

But since Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton et al are ALSO refusing to do the right thing, I won't be surprised if Petraeus - if equally responsible - declines to do so as well.

But those men each gave their full measure protecting their fellow Americans & any future Commander-In-Chief who recognizes their sacrifice should have no problem granting those medals to their respective families on behalf of a grateful nation.

And why, in the heat of battle with real-time communications regarding what was going on, didn't our top leaders send responsive help that was so urgently needed? Past presidents have taken rapid actions to protect our people. For example, in 1984, President (Ronald) Reagan ordered U.S. pilots to force an airliner carrying terrorists to land at Sigonella within a 90 minute window while they were still airborne. The Obama national security team had several hours to move forces from that same air base to Benghazi.

Filmmaker Oliver Stone and historian Peter Kuznick criticize Obama's presidency in a forthcoming book called The Untold History of the United States, saying he has too often mimicked Republican predecessor George W. Bush.

"The country Obama inherited was indeed in shambles, but Obama took a bad situation and, in certain ways, made it worse," write Stone and Kuznick, reports Politico. "Rather than repudiating the policies of Bush and his predecessors, Obama has perpetuated them."

Another reason some activists have abandoned The One is the fact that his extremism changed aspects of the party that make some Old Left Democrats uncomfortable. Even the "black vote" isn't as monolithic for him as it has been advertised.